Joint Disease, Osteoarthritis, Knee
Conditions
Brief summary
The aim of this study is to evaluate postoperative knee function after total knee arthroplasty performed according to the anatomical alignment and compare these results to those of a matched historical cohort of patients operated with mechanical alignment.
Detailed description
The 25 patients, of the Kinematic group, are prospectively enrolled. While, the data of patients of the Mechanical group, are retrospectively collected from an historical collection.
Interventions
PROCEDUREKinematic alignment
The principle for kinematically aligning the femoral component is to remove the correct amount of bone and cartilage from the distal and posterior femur after accounting for wear and saw blade kerf, so that the total thickness of the missing and removed tissue matches the thickness of the femoral component.
PROCEDUREMechanical alignment
Classic mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is meant to co-align the prosthetic components to the mechanical axes of the femur and tibia and restore neutral overall limb alignment
DEVICEGMK Sphere®
The GMK Sphere® is a total knee prosthesis . The design of the GMK Sphere® is characterized by a spherical medial femoral condyle and an asymmetrical fixed tibial UHMWPE polyethylene insert with a concave spherical medial compartment.
Sponsors
Medacta International SA
Study design
Observational model
CASE_CONTROL
Time perspective
OTHER
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. Patients presenting with disease that meets the indications for use for Medacta implants defined by this study (on-label use). 2. Patients necessitating primary Total Knee Replacement 3. Patients who are willing and able to provide written informed consent for participation in the study. Written informed consent must be obtained prior to the patient's surgery.
Exclusion criteria
1. Those with one or more medical conditions identified as a contraindication defined by the labeling on Medacta implants used in this study. 2. Previous osteotomy around the knee 3. Ligament instability likely to require higher level of constraint 4. Previous infection or inflammatory disease 5. Extraarticular deformities for which a femoral intramedullary guide rod can't be inserted into the canal and use of Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS) or Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) is required.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Compare clinical outcomes of mechanical vs kinematic with new Knee Society Score | 1-year follow-up | The new KSS (from the publication of 2011, Giles R. Scuderi MD The New Knee Society Knee Scoring System Clin Orthop Relat Res (2012) 470:3-19) includes a part filled by the surgeon and one by the patient. The first outcome is focused on the Functional Activities subscore, excluding the Discretionary knee activities. The maximum is 85 points while the minimum is -10 points. The Functional Activities score includes 3 subscores: WALKING AND STANDING (min -10, max 30), STANDARD ACTIVITIES (min 0, max 30) and ADVANCED ACTIVITIES (min 0, max 25) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Patient functional improvement, satisfaction and symptoms | 1-year follow-up | The functional improvement, satisfaction and symptoms is the sum of the following subscores of the new KSS: Functional Activities, Patient Satisfaction and Symptoms |
| Residual deformity | 1-year follow-up | The residual deformity is evaluated by long axis Xray analysis: HKA angle |
| Flexion-extension contracture | 1-year follow-up | The flexion-extension contracture is evaluated by a subscore of the new KSS: Joint motion |
| Self-reported pain, function and stiffness | 1-year follow-up | These aspects are evaluated through KOOS score |
| Ability to forget about artificial joint | 1-year follow-up | Through the use of the Forgotten Joint Score |
Countries
Germany
Outcome results
None listed